Court File and Parties

CITATION: Pamela Poitras v. The Estate of Gilles Roger Poitras, 2016 ONSC 7268

COURT FILE NO.: 14-166

DATE: November 22, 2016

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Pamela Poitras, Applicant

AND

The Estate of Gilles Roger Poitras, deceased, Chantal Davey, in her personal capacity, Dany Poitras in his personal capacity, Chantal Davey and Dany Poitras, executors of the last will and testament of Gilles Roger Poitras, deceased, Jacquelin Poitras, Mariette Delorme and Louise Gougeon, Respondents

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martin James

COUNSEL: Mary Shushack, Counsel for the Applicant John W. Montgomery, Counsel for the Respondents other than Jacquelin Poitras No one appearing for Jacquelin Poitras

HEARD: Written Submissions

Supplementary ENDORSEMENT

[1] This supplementary endorsement deals with an issue raised in paragraph 59 of the Reasons for Decision in this proceeding reported at 2016 ONSC 5049 and in respect of which I invited counsel to provide submissions. Briefly stated, the issue was whether the distribution of the residue of the Estate ought to be delayed until the termination of the life estate in the applicant’s favour.

[2] Both counsel agree that the distribution of the residue ought to await the termination of the life estate. This is consistent with the terms of paragraph 3(c) of the Will.

[3] Counsel for the applicant has sought two “clarifications”. The first is to request an order that the Trailblazer vehicle be treated as, and included with, the contents of the house. A vehicle is separate and distinct from household contents and the applicant’s request is declined. Secondly, the applicant requests that the present Estate Trustee During Litigation be appointed as the Estate Trustee in place of the two Estate Trustees named in the Will due to “strained relations” with the existing trustees. A testator’s appointment of Estate Trustees is not to be lightly interfered with. No application to formally replace the existing trustees has been brought. It is appropriate to assume that the Estate Trustees will properly discharge their duties in a manner consistent with the court’s rulings and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, their appointment should remain in place.

[4] Order accordingly.

The Honourable Mr. Justice James

Date: November 22, 2016

CITATION: Pamela Poitras v. The Estate of Gilles Roger Poitras, deceased, 2016 ONSC 7268

COURT FILE NO.: 14-166

DATE: November 22, 2016

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Pamela Poitras, Applicant

AND

The Estate of Gilles Roger Poitras, deceased, Chantal Davey, in her personal capacity, Dany Poitras in his personal capacity, Chantal Davey and Dany Poitras, executors of the last will and testament of Gilles Roger Poitras, deceased, Jacquelin Poitras, Mariette Delorme and Louise Gougeon, Respondents

BEFORE: Honourable Mr. Justice Martin James

COUNSEL: Mary Shushack, Counsel for the Applicant No one appearing for Jacquelin Poitras John W. Montgomery, Counsel, for the Respondents

supplementary ENDORSEMENT

James, J.

Released: November 22, 2016